Engel+v.+Vitale

Jessica Oliver Engel Et. Al. v. Vitale Et. Al. United States Supreme Court Argued April 3, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962 Background: The State Board of Regents in New York composed a prayer for students to recite at the start of each school day. The prayer was “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country . ” The Union Free Public School District adopted this practice which was quickly contested by the parents of 10 students. The parents asserted that this practice violated their First Amendment rights by not separating Church and State. //McGowan v. Maryland// reiterates that the Bill of Rights gives “free play” concerning religion. The case also reminds us that “if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government . ” The district courts upheld the decision of the school to implement prayer in the classroom.

Decision and Rationale: The United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the District Court of New York. The Supreme Court declared that the New York public schools did not have the right to have a teacher recite the Regent’s prayer with the expectation that students would also say the prayer. Even with students having the option to remain silent during the prayer, the court decided the occurrence of prayer in school was unconstitutional. The idea of government acting as a neutral entity was brought forth to remind everyone that this is necessary to better serve the people of the free world.

Impact on Teaching: Teachers are responsible for teaching students of all races, socioeconomic statuses, morals and beliefs, and religions, among other things. A teacher, like the government, must also retain neutrality. Without an open mind and an open heart it is impossible the reach students in a public school setting. //Engel v. Vitale // provides children of all religions, or with no religion at all, to attend school without the pressures of an established religion incorporated into their day. This leaves the school open for the primary purpose of teaching students subjects such as math, science, language arts, and social studies.

Test Question: What court case tells us that if religion is involved in the affairs of people, then it is to be done by individuals or groups, but not by the government?

Chelsea Moody Engel v. Vitale <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Supreme Court of United States <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Argued: April 3, 1962 Decided: June 25, 1962

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Background: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> The parents of ten students in New Hyde Park, New York’s School District filed suit in a New York State Court claiming that the official prayer, that had been adopted by the district from a recommendation of the State Board of Regents, opposed the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both the students and the students parents if they were made to say the prayer each day at the beginning of the school day. These parents not only challenged the state for authorizing the School District to use prayer in a public school, but the School District as well, stating that these actions violate part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Decision and Rationale: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> The courts ruled in favor of the parents and the students stating that they were wrong in making a brief prayer at the beginning of the school mandatory. On behalf of the parents and students, they brought about cases such as McGown v Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 536 (dissenting opinion) making the point that, “if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.” The school district is leaving the student with a choice to participate in the school prayer without implication or compulsion.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Impact of Teaching: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Now teachers have to be more aware of the things they ask their students to participate in. Especially if it could be viewed as a religious bias, teachers have to be extremely careful. It is also vital to give the students an option to participate or not to participate and not making it a mandatory case when the matter is religious driven. Since religion is such a touchy subject, most aspects of it are left out of the public school systems; but the few that are, i.e. The Pledge of Allegiance, students are not required to say the pledge but are asked to stand while it is being recited.

<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> Question: <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"> True/False: It mandatory for all students in a public school system to participate in school prayer.

= **Michael Mooney** = ** Engel v. Vitale, 370 **** US **** 421 - Supreme Court 1962 ** In 1962, the Board of Regents of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York established and implements a prayer that would be recited at the beginning of each school day. The parents of 10 of the students at the school opposed the reading, claiming the government was overstepping its bounds of pushing religion in a public forum. The prayer reads as follows: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." There was a provision placed by the Board of Regents stating that any child may be excused from the reciting of the prayer with a written permission slip from their parent of guardian. By adding that exception, they Board thought this prayer to be an acceptable addition to the school system. The parents disagreed saying that the Government institution which is the Board of Regents had no right to enact such a policy regardless of the exceptions issued. //McCollum// v. //Board of Education,// 333 U. S. 203 was used as an example or precedents concerning the using of public school facilities for religious uses.
 * Background: **

The Supreme Court found in favor of the parents and reversed the earlier decisions by the lower courts. While making their decision, the Court called upon history to show the distinction between religious freedoms and those religions imposed upon the people by the government. The main argument was not that the Board of Regents was establishing a religion or restricting the religious choices of the students, but the simple fault of the prayer being created by and then enforced by the government body itself. The court used as the basis for its rationale the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution as well as the Establishment Clause. The court further justified the decision by using previous court cases //Zorach// v. //Clauson,// 343 U. S. 306, 313 and //McGowan// v. // Maryland ////, // 366 U. S. 420, 563. The latter of the two has a quote which states, under our Bill of Rights free play is given for making religion an active force in our lives. But if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.
 * Decision and Rationale: **

The issue of religion in a public school setting will be an argument that will persist for a long time to come. There was no intention by the board to push a religious belief or to force others to adhere to any particular religion, however, the board did overstep the bounds of what a government body should and should not do. The teachers that fill our public school system should pay attention to this and all cases that are decided with religion as an argument. The teacher has a small area of acceptance when it comes to religion and making a mistake is easier, even if unintended, then not making one. The impact of this and many other similar cases on the teaching profession is that educators must be aware of the different beliefs and religious ways of the classroom and be ever vigilant about how and what they discuss in their classroom. Even discussing all sides of a story can be dangerous due to the fear and possibility of offending someone and incurring the wrath of a parent to start legal actions. ** Question: ** What three amendment/clause of the Constitution did the court use in the rationale for this decision?
 * Impact on Teaching: **

Engel Et. Al. v. Vitale Et. Al. United States Supreme Court Argued April 3, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962
 * Eric Miller**

The State Board of Regents in New York composed a prayer for students to recite at the start of each school day. The prayer was “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">.” This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system. Shortly after the practice of reciting the Regents' prayer was adopted by the School District, the parents of ten pupils brought this action in a New York State Court insisting that use of this official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of both themselves and their children. Among other things, these parents challenged the constitutionality of both the state law authorizing the School District to direct the use of prayer in public schools and the School District's regulation ordering the recitation of this particular prayer on the ground that these actions of official governmental agencies violate that part of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The courts ruled in favor of the parents and the students stating that they were wrong in making a brief prayer at the beginning of the school mandatory. On behalf of the parents and students, they brought about cases such as McGown v Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 536 (dissenting opinion) making the point that, “if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be done by individuals and groups, not by the Government.” The school district is leaving the student with a choice to participate in the school prayer without implication or compulsion. The impact that this case had on teaching serves as a reminder that every child, parent, and person that is involved with the school system is diverse. Not everyone shares the same ideas, religion, or perspectives of the majority and that we must cater to everyone regardless of their differences. **Question**: (True/False) The court case Engel v. Vitale prevented the state of New York from requiring students to cite a prayer.
 * Background:**
 * Decision and Rationale:**
 * Impact on Teaching: **